Bombay High Court
REDDY MALLESH SHADKINUR @ RAJUversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail is the exception and may be granted only if the court is satisfied of reasonable grounds of innocence and that the accused will not commit further offences, which was not established here.
Summary
The applicant, Reddy Mallesh Shadkinur, sought bail after being in custody since December 2022 for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, involving the recovery of 110 g of mephedrone from him and 460 g from a co‑accused. The applicant relied on a Supreme Court decision in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha to argue that prolonged pre‑trial detention warranted bail. The State opposed, contending that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, were complied with and that the nature and quantity of the narcotics seized justified denial of bail. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, which emphasizes that bail is the exception for offences punishable with five years’ imprisonment or more unless reasonable grounds of innocence are shown. Applying that precedent, the Court found no sufficient reason to believe the applicant was not guilty or unlikely to re‑offend, and therefore rejected the bail application. The bail application was consequently disposed of, with the applicant remaining in custody.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in denying bail to an accused charged with offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more?
- Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention and the cited Supreme Court precedent in Rabi Prakash warrant the grant of bail despite the nature of the evidence?
- Whether the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act (including Sections 42 and 50) have been complied with in the present case?
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(b), 22(c), 29, 37, 42, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- narcotics
- pre‑trial detention
- mandatory provisions
- court discretion
Judgment
16-BA-1088-2025.DOC
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1088 OF 2025
Reddy Mallesh Shadkinur @ Raju …Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondents
Mr. Nilesh Bangar, with Kamlesh Satre, for the Applicant.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 27th MARCH, 2026.
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks bail only on the ground of long
incarceration in connection with Crime No. 01 of 2023 registered
with the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Mumbai, for the offences punishable
under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short).
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
is arrested on 31st December 2022 and since then, he is in custody.
He relies upon an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rabi Prakash v. the State of Odisha1 to seek bail.
3. The learned APP opposes the Application by submitting that
from the present Applicant, 110 grams of Mephedrone (‘MD’) was
recovered so also, pursuant to the information given by him, there
1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109
Page 1 of 3
th
27 March, 2026.
16-BA-1088-2025.DOC
is a recovery from the Co-accused of 460 grams of MD. It is
submitted that this is not the case wherein there is non-compliance
of the provisions of Sections 42 or 50 of the NDPS Act.
4. It is not the case of the Applicant that there is non-
compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Thus, it
could be said that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act are
complied with. The Applicant is seeking bail only on the ground
that he is in jail since 2023. The judgment cited in the case of Rabi
Prakash (Supra), does not lay down the proposition of law that in
all cases, an Accused, irrespective of the nature of evidence against
him, needs to be enlarged on bail.
5. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Kajad 2 wherein it is held as under:
"6. ... A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in
the mind of the Court that a person accused of an offence,
punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more,
shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the
rule and its grant and exception under sub clause (ii) of
clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court
must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is
charged and further that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the
conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-
2 2001(7) SCC 673
Page 2 of 3
th
27 March, 2026.
16-BA-1088-2025.DOC
section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations
provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other
law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail.
Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is
uncalled for."
6. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court, Applicant is not entitled to bail, as the embargo of Section
37 of the NDPS Act would apply to instant case.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Application stands
rejected.
8. The Bail Application stands disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.04.02
16:10:01
+0530
Page 3 of 3
th
27 March, 2026.
Checking your session…